Slashdot Mirror
In First Ruling of Its Kind, Apple and Samsung Fined For Deliberately Slowing Down Old Phones (theguardian.com)
An investigation by Italy's competition authority has found that software updates "significantly reduced performance" on Samsung's Android handsets and iPhones. From a report: Apple and Samsung are being fined Euro 10m ($11.4m) and Euro 5m ($5.7) respectively in Italy for the "planned obsolescence" of their smartphones. An investigation launched in January by the nation's competition authority found that certain smartphone software updates had a negative effect on the performance of the devices. Believed to be the first ruling of its kind against smartphone manufacturers, the investigation followed accusations operating system updates for older phones slowed them down, thereby encouraging the purchase of new phones.
In a statement the antitrust watchdog said "Apple and Samsung implemented dishonest commercial practices" and that operating system updates "caused serious malfunctions and significantly reduced performance, thus accelerating phones' substitution." It added the two firms had not provided clients adequate information about the impact of the new software "or any means of restoring the original functionality of the products."
In a statement the antitrust watchdog said "Apple and Samsung implemented dishonest commercial practices" and that operating system updates "caused serious malfunctions and significantly reduced performance, thus accelerating phones' substitution." It added the two firms had not provided clients adequate information about the impact of the new software "or any means of restoring the original functionality of the products."
It seems to me that they would get in trouble for "planned obsolescence" either way. I'm sure some are thinking "What about 'C. Release software that doesn't slow down older phones'?", but that may not be possible based on the hardware. The only other realistic option is "D. Don't release software updates".
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Those pitiful sums won't stop them from doing it for as long as they are not physically restrained from scamming naive customers.
I would like to remind everyone that the Italian legal system is the same one that tried to put geologists in jail for an earthquake, and tried Amanda Knox for murder despite already convicting another person for that crime.
Let me know when another country reaches the same findings, because I don't have confidence in Italian courts.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
This ruling is proof-positive that Courts, by and large, (and definitely this Court) do not understand "Tech".
I don't know about Google; but in the case of Apple:
Apple explained what their "motivations" were (which was to provide the User with an OVERALL more RELIABLE experience). Court OBVIOUSLY didn't get it.
Many, many instances of people with NON-clock-speed-managed phones (both Apple AND Android) having their phones showing what appeared to be "plenty" of battery charge suddenly reboot due to a voltage-dip from a sudden spike in CPU/GPU load. Court OBVIOUSLY didn't understand batteries, physics, nor di/dt issues in digital electronics.
Apple has already explained and given the User the CHOICE to "live dangerously" (by electing to disable this part of power-management). Court OBVIOUSLY didn't understand this.
Apple has already mitigated the root-cause of the matter (battery-aging), which again, is a fact of PHYSICS, by offering low-cost battery replacements to ANY of the "affected" phones.
Apple has gone to great lengths to release a version of IOS that SPECIFICALLY (and quite frankly, dramatically) IMPROVES the overall PERFORMANCE of OLDER PHONES, not by removing any "slowdowns"; but by running-around and seeing where they could make individual processes more efficient, and also by decreasing the amount of "ramp up" time for clock-speed in response to greater loads. (one spec I saw took that ramp-up time from 450ms to 80ms. Those things add-up...)
Apple is now supporting SEVEN generations of the iPhone (and about 5 generations of iPad) with the latest version of IOS 12 (the same IOS 12 that specifically and vastly IMPROVES the performance of OLDER devices).
So, tell me: How was ANY of this "Anti-Consumer"? How was ANY of this "In furtherance of a plot to trick people into Upgrading unnecessarily?"
If you really like your phone the way it is and are worried about slow downs, don't update. It's that simple.
More features == more bloat == slower than the previous software on the same hardware. This has been true since the dawn of computing.
Not in the case of IOS 12.
It actually runs (much!) FASTER than even the ORIGINAL iOS version on my iPhone 6 Plus.
Now what?
"In other words, the developers are building kernels, OS's, and apps for new hardware, not the old stuff."
Huh? That isn't a paraphrase of what you quoted at all. You quoted apple admitting they've intentionally slowed down older phones under the guise of extending battery life.
If the manufacturers are intentionally releasing updates that have a goal of degrading performance on a device, yes, that should be discouraged.
However, if a manufacturer releases an update that is just patches, fixes, new features, what have you, without the intention of degrading performance on a device, but instead as a side effect of the changes, the device's performance is degraded, then we have to say, that's ok.
It would be pretty absurd to expect a old device to run the newest software. This is nothing new in the PC world at least, I certainly wouldn't expect a 486 or Pentium to run Windows 10 all nice and usable.
It would be equally absurd to expect manufacturers from holding back updates that may correct security issues, or other critical bugs. Those updates might degrade performance.
I'm not entire sure I'm comfortable with a court making the call on which side of this fence the update falls on. Intentional performance loss, or just side effect of updates? There'd have to be some pretty solid evidence of the former if it's going to be the call. Apple is definitely guilty of this, among a plethora of other shady activities.
I mean, slowing them down is better than them abruptly shutting off well before 0% due to a weak battery, no?
What should they have done?
I guess if they made it a popup message like:
"Your Phone recently shut off prematurely due to a worn out battery, click here to activate a mode that will limit the maximum power draw of your phone to prevent premature shut off. Note that your performance will be somewhat degraded in this mode, you can change this mode at any time in the settings app."
Something similar to that.
But ultimately the reason they chose to do this was to limit the maximum power draw so that the phone wouldn't shut off before the battery was drained. This was only happening on phones with worn out batteries and replacing the battery brought the performance back to full. Slowdown was simply a necessary side effect of capping the maximum power draw.
There's a simple low-hanging fruit here: simply pass a law that software products much support reversion to any version the user might have previously installed.
And if the manufacturer wants to scrub an old version from the face of the planet (say, for example, they infringed a patent), then they must provide the old version with only those fixes, or only those fixes with substantially the same performance profile, plug-in API, and UI layout, etc. (though it might be built on a later release which is more feature rich, at the manufacturer's choice).
Second, we repeal prohibitions against reverse engineering if the default install of the best-available older release can be rooted right out of the box by a known exploit that's more than a year old. (If you won't fix it, the government is providing no assistance through the legal system to help you prevent your customers from fixing it themselves; and if they publicise any of your trade secrets in the process, so be it, that cat is now forevermore out of the bag.)
Note that we're not making anyone fix anything.
We're making the corporations do precisely one thing: support older products by allowing original firmware to be reinstalled (original firmware, or narrowly patched original firmware, preserving operational characteristics and user experience).
And we're also saying: if you can't eff yourself to make your default install secure, and you also won't eff yourself to amend your mistakes once they come to light (surely there weren't so many that this instantly drives you out of business), don't come begging to the fiat power of government to shelter your half-ass trade secrets.
This would create an a much-needed incentive structure for companies with half trillion dollar market caps to tempt their customers to embrace the future with carrots rather than sticks.
The Wild West of the smartphone explosion is long over now.
It's high time for a more studied pace of product churn, one where security gets equal shrift.
Note also that leaves innumerable loopholes available for software corporations to continue to shit on their user bases. But the shenanigans will be a little bit more out in the open, and easier to ridicule, and hence more effectively policed by the court of public opinion (which is where this should and would be litigated, if the court of public opinion was lifted off the mat).
We know you're an Apple cult member. Quit trying to tell us you use an iPhone 6 Plus. Maybe you have one in a drawer that you use for regression testing, but face it, you gobbled down a new iPhone X as soon as you found out about the animated feces app.
Sorry to dissapoint you; but my current Apple compliment is:
A mid 2012 MacBook Pro (my current computer); iPhone 6 Plus (my current iPhone); iPad 2 (which I am typing this on); AppleTV 4th gen; a 1.8 DP G5 tower (in my livingroom as an iTunes Server and Security Camera DVR).
And, that's it.
I have some older Apple gear, all the way back to an Apple 1; but none of it is in current use.
Contrary to your damaged Hater brain, not all Apple enthusiasts are rich, effete, fashionistas. For example, my main area of expertise is in embedded development. I have over 4 decades of paid experience in that field.
Your turn...
Batteries. Batteries, batteries, batteries. Batteries.
STOP GLUING WEAR ITEMS INTO OUR DEVICES. IT IS NOT OKAY.
Seriously. It is NOT OKAY that a phone that should last 5-10 years malfunctions in 18 months.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
For a contract to be valid, you must have the option to both agree and decline. Without these two options, it's not a contract or agreement. Not a binding one, at least.
It always seemed like an oversight, but I guess Apple lawyers ae that confident that none of you will ever sue,
If you own a company, though, and you want to bind people to an agreement ... always include a decline button next to the agree button.
You may not pester as many people into agreeing, but at least you can legitimately claim that the people who did agree, agreed, instead of simply gave in to make the daily harrassment stop.